3V Performance wrote: my 360ci small block makes 850+ hp (2.4hp per cubic inch) and runs tight center (109) on race gas ( 12to1 comp) Put this on 114 and get run over.
So, in your experience, you are saying that the tight 109 center makes way more power than a 114, even in a super bad boy race motor. Add that to what Joe and Vizard are saying, and you have just about covered most high performance applications. And your experience also matches that SBC LSA comparison article, that the magazine article showed a month or two ago, which was also discussed here.
Sure one LSA cam is not the best for all applications because of the numerous variables, but it sure stacks up as being preferred in an awful lot of high performance applications, in spite of many wanting to argue the opposite. Its kind of hard to argue with what works, but of course that doesn't stop folks from doing it anyway.
540 RAT wrote:So, in your experience, you are saying that the tight 109 center makes way more power than a 114, even in a super bad boy race motor. Add that to what Joe and Vizard are saying, and you have just about covered most high performance applications. And your experience also matches that SBC LSA comparison article, that the magazine article showed a month or two ago, which was also discussed here.
Sure one LSA cam is not the best for all applications because of the numerous variables, but it sure stacks up as being preferred in an awful lot of high performance applications, in spite of many wanting to argue the opposite. Its kind of hard to argue with what works, but of course that doesn't stop folks from doing it anyway.
All I'm saying is some like wide and some like tight. It's not cut and dry.
3V Performance
" ENGINES WITH AN ATTITUDE "
980-222-7230
Here's a few 2+hp per inch engines to look at.
410" outlaw sprinter with big -12 heads: cam LSA 106 to 108
420" Dirt Latemodel with SB2 heads: cam LSA 106 to 108
377" Dirt Latemodel with SB2 heads: cam LSA 104-106
Here's a 3+hp per inch engine to look at.
2003 IRL Indycar engine: cam LSA 103
CamKing wrote:Here's a few 2+hp per inch engines to look at.
410" outlaw sprinter with big -12 heads: cam LSA 106 to 108
420" Dirt Latemodel with SB2 heads: cam LSA 106 to 108
377" Dirt Latemodel with SB2 heads: cam LSA 104-106
Here's a 3+hp per inch engine to look at.
2003 IRL Indycar engine: cam LSA 103
You are making a darn good case for the value of using narrow LSA's in really bad boy stuff, which supports the general idea that narrow is apparently the preferred way to go in high performance applications. Yet earlier you were basically saying Vizard was off his nut, and that you had come to different conclusions than him regarding the value of using narrow LSA's. But this agrees with Vizard's general preference for narrow LSA's.
You are also now agreeing with the SBC LSA comparison test done by that magazine awhile back, which showed the same thing, only on less potent engine. But I seem to recall that you were one of the biggest critics of that article.
So, now we have you, Joe and Vizard all showing the advantages of using narrow LSA's in varying levels of high performance applications. Who'da thunk it?
540 RAT wrote:You are making a darn good case for the value of using narrow LSA's in really bad boy stuff, which supports the general idea that narrow is apparently the preferred way to go in high performance applications. Yet earlier you were basically saying Vizard was off his nut, and that you had come to different conclusions than him regarding the value of using narrow LSA's. But this agrees with Vizard's general preference for narrow LSA's.
You are also now agreeing with the SBC LSA comparison test done by that magazine awhile back, which showed the same thing, only on less potent engine. But I seem to recall that you were one of the biggest critics of that article.?
I don't know how you could get that from my post.
You're reading something that isn't there.
BTW, here are two more examples.
Nascar Nextel cup engine: cam LSA 110
NHRA Pro-Stock engine: cam LSA 117.5
How you could actually see some kind of pattern is beyond me.
Both articles are meaningless, and do nothing but confuse those readers that are struggling to understand how an engine works.
540 Rat,
Vizard, and every other popular magazine article focus on what Mr. Sherman calls street/strip engines. You can't directly translate every "budget big block that makes 600 hp" article into a full max effort race motor.
I don't claim to be an expert on cams but I hope I am wise enough to listen to the real experts. Both Camking and Harold Brookshire know a ton about cam design. Why are you debating with people who do cams for a living? Why don't you design a cam and see if it makes more power than one that Harold or Mike suggests?
Mpcoluv wrote:540 Rat,
Vizard, and every other popular magazine article focus on what Mr. Sherman calls street/strip engines. You can't directly translate every "budget big block that makes 600 hp" article into a full max effort race motor.
I don't claim to be an expert on cams but I hope I am wise enough to listen to the real experts. Both Camking and Harold Brookshire know a ton about cam design. Why are you debating with people who do cams for a living? Why don't you design a cam and see if it makes more power than one that Harold or Mike suggests?
Ahh, if you're around this board much you'll see that 540Rat just likes to post a lot of silly stuff. Most ignore him since he doesn't add any value. You're on the right track, Camking and Harold usually have the good info when it comes to cams.
figure the min rpm (launch rpm off the line)
figure the shift point
the rpm it will run in the powerband with your heads
Say a worked Dart/RHS 220 head for example on a 355cid
If 5,000rpm stall and 9,000rpm max rpm say for example 278/286 on a 109 lobe center
If it were the same engine using 5,500rpm stall and 7,600rpm shifts then do a cam such as 278/286 on a 106 lobe center to put the power in the narrower operating band
andyf wrote:Ahh, if you're around this board much you'll see that 540Rat just likes to post a lot of silly stuff. Most ignore him since he doesn't add any value. You're on the right track, Camking and Harold usually have the good info when it comes to cams.
I'd say it adds value... it always makes for good reading for amatuers like me. I learn a lot reading what the pros say on these threads.
Jeez, tough crowd. Just like some of you guys to shoot the messenger. I simply showed that Vizard, big Joe and a few others, show that what a lot of people consider a narrow LSA can and does make excellent power on a variety of engines, even though it seems common for a lot of folks to say otherwise. What's so hard to grasp about that? It just shows that what is considered a wide LSA is not the only game in town. Never once did I ever say that one LSA is right for every engine. Other folks just make up BS that was never said. Maybe they can't read. All this post is pointing out is that there can be a lot of value to narrow LSA's. And that has been clearly proven.
AndyF, if you consider that thinking is silly, then you are calling Vizard, Big Joe and others silly, since it is their info that is being referenced, not my own. So that is your loss, because you can't grasp the idea that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I guess I'd say YOU are worse than silly, ignorant would be what comes to mind.
Atwood, Pro Stockers don't use wide LSA's because there is anything magical about them. They use them because their duration is so large, that the wider LSA's allow them to keep the overlap in the range that they desire, duh.
3V, dude you were one of the guys who said how awesome your narrow 109 LSA is, and how it made way more power than a wide 114 LSA . Now you are taking the opposite side, and going against what you said yourself? Hmmmm......
Mpcoluv, CamKing posted this:
Here's a few 2+hp per inch engines to look at.
410" outlaw sprinter with big -12 heads: cam LSA 106 to 108
420" Dirt Latemodel with SB2 heads: cam LSA 106 to 108
377" Dirt Latemodel with SB2 heads: cam LSA 104-106
Here's a 3+hp per inch engine to look at.
2003 IRL Indycar engine: cam LSA 103
So, CamKing himself, did in fact show how this DID translate into max effort race motors. Can't you read what he posted? And for that matter, Harold also listed some of his narrow LSA cams, somewhere along this discussion.
CamKing, with what you posted above, how could I NOT get that you made a good case for narrow LSA's, when that's exactly what you did? What is it that you can't understand about what you posted? Did you even read what you posted? If that doesn't help make a case for narrow LSA's working great in max effort stuff, I don't know what would.
Bottom line is that, it appears that one could dig up about as many pros and cons for using either narrow or wide LSA's. The trick of course is in knowing when to use which one. And it is rather apparent that there is not much of a guideline for which is good when, when BOTH have been shown good in both moderate and high performance engines. One Pro will claim one is good for a given setup, while another Pro will claim just the opposite. And of course that is typical for our hobby/industry. People only agree to disagree...........
540 RAT wrote:Atwood, Pro Stockers don't use wide LSA's because there is anything magical about them. They use them because their duration is so large, that the wider LSA's allow them to keep the overlap in the range that they desire, duh.......
